Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road ... vs Savitri Devi (2025:Rj-Jd:22510) on 9 May, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:22510]



      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 902/2024

1.       Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport
         Corporation, Sriganganagar Depot, Tehsil And Dist.
         Sriganganagar (Raj.)
2.       Zonal Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport
         Corporation, Bikaner Zone Dist. Bikaner (Raj.)
                                                                    ----Appellants
                                    Versus
1.       Savitri Devi W/o Shyamlal Sad, R/o Dujar, Tehsil Ladnu,
         Dist. Nagaur (Raj.)
2.       Sapna Swami D/o Shyamlal Sad, R/o Dujar, Tehsil
         Ladnu, Dist. Nagaur (Raj.)
3.       Kalpana Swami D/o Shyamlal Sad, R/o Dujar, Tehsil
         Ladnu, Dist. Nagaur (Raj.)
4.       Akanksha Swami D/o Shyamlal Sad, R/o Dujar, Tehsil
         Ladnu, Dist. Nagaur (Raj.)
5.       Smt. Bali W/o Baldas, R/o Dujar, Tehsil Ladnu, Dist.
         Nagaur (Raj.)
6.       Vishnu Kumar Swami S/o Baldas, R/o Dujar, Tehsil
         Ladnu, Dist. Nagaur (Raj.)
7.       Vivek Kumar Swami S/o Baldas, R/o Dujar, Tehsil Ladnu,
         Dist. Nagaur (Raj.)
8.       Vishvas Swami S/o Baldas, R/o Dujar, Tehsil Ladnu, Dist.
         Nagaur (Raj.)
9.       Kamlesh Kumar S/o Shivchandra, R/o 24 L.g. W. Dhanai,
         Sardarpura   Bika,    Suratgarh,   Tehsil And   Dist.
         Sriganganagar (Raj.) (Driver And Owner)
                                                                  ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)            :    Mr. L.K. Purohit.
For Respondent(s)           :    Mr. Youraj Singh for
                                 Mr. R.S. Choudhary.


               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Order (Oral)

09/05/2025

1. Appeal herein, inter-alia, is against the judgment / award

dated 08.12.2023 rendered by the learned Judge, Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Ladanu in Motor Accident Claim Case No.97/2022,

[2025:RJ-JD:22510] (2 of 9) [CMA-902/2024]

vide which a compensation of Rs. 67,40,672/- has been awarded

in favour of the respondents-claimants.

2. Brief facts first. On 02.02.2016, deceased Shyamlal (aged

40), a Government Teacher riding his motorcycle when he was

allegedly hit by a rashly and negligently driven RSRTC bus (No.

RJ-13-PB-2900) coming from the opposite direction. He sustained

serious fatal injuries and died on the way to Jaipur for treatment.

An FIR No.40/2016 was registered under Sections 279 & 304-A of

IPC. After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the

bus driver.

2.1 The claimants filed a compensation claim, which was

contested by the driver and owner, denying any negligence and

also asserting that the bus was not involved in the accident.

RSRTC, in its reply, also denied involvement of the offending bus,

alleging that the accident was falsely attributed to the bus with

the aid of the police. On merits it was contended that the

deceased's brothers were not dependents and hence not entitled

to any compensation.

2.2 After framing four issues and recording evidence, the learned

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ladanu, awarded compensation of

Rs. 67,40,672/- to the claimants. Aggrieved by the judgment and

award dated 08.12.2023, the appellants have filed the present

appeal.

3. Learned Tribunal framed four issues, English translation of

which is as below:-

"1. Whether on 02.02.2016 at around 10:00 A.M., in village boundary Bakliya, the non-applicant No. 1, being the driver and registered owner of vehicle number RJ 13 PB 2900, was driving the vehicle at high speed, negligently and carelessly, and hit Shyamlal, due to which Shyamlal sustained serious bodily injuries

[2025:RJ-JD:22510] (3 of 9) [CMA-902/2024]

resulting in his death -- and whether the said vehicle was under

contract with non-applicant No. 2 at the time?

Applicants

2. Whether, on the basis of the objections raised by the non-

applicants in their reply, they have no liability in this matter?

Non-applicants

3. Whether the applicants are entitled to receive compensation of ₹1,99,98,040/- as mentioned in the petition, or any other amount, from the non-applicants? If yes, then how much, from whom, and to what extent?

Applicants

4. Relief?"

4. Based on the respective evidence adduced by the parties,

the learned Tribunal decided Issues No.1 & 3 in favour of the

claimants and Issue No.2 is against the claimants.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that the learned

Tribunal committed serious errors in deciding Issues No. 1 and 2

in favour of the claimants. The Tribunal wrongly concluded that

the driver of the bus was rash and negligent, ignoring substantial

material on record that exonerates the driver. The evidence on

record, including the site plan and statements of witnesses, clearly

suggest that the bus was not involved in the accident or that the

deceased himself acted in a rash and negligent manner.

Notwithstanding, the Tribunal accepted the version claimant's

witness, who is not an actual eyewitness, while discarding more

reliable oral and documentary evidence presented by the

appellants. The finding as to negligence rests merely on the filing

of a challan, which is not conclusive proof. The Tribunal failed to

appreciate the site map and other evidence in the correct

perspective and ignored that the deceased himself was the

primary cause of the accident.

5.1 He submits that even if the bus is presumed to be involved in

the accident, the Tribunal failed to apply the principles of res ipsa

loquitur and contributory negligence. A plain reading of the site

[2025:RJ-JD:22510] (4 of 9) [CMA-902/2024]

plan and witness testimonies makes it evident that the deceased

also contributed to the accident. At best, this is a case of

contributory negligence, and the entire liability cannot be fastened

solely on the Corporation.

5.2 With respect to the compensation awarded under Issue

No. 3, he contends that the Tribunal has granted an excessive and

unjustified amount of Rs. 67,40,672/-, relying solely on the salary

certificate of the deceased. There is no corroborative evidence to

prove actual income, and no income tax returns have been

produced. The Tribunal added 50% towards future prospects and

deducted only 1/5th for personal expenses despite acknowledging

five dependents falling to apply the structured formula under

Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act or the principles laid down

by the Apex Court. As a result, the compensation awarded is

excessive.

5.3 Lastly, he points out that the deceased's widow has already

been employed on compassionate grounds, which offsets the

alleged loss of income. This material fact was not considered by

the Tribunal, rendering the award unsustainable.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported

the award impugned and seeks dismissal of the appeal.

7. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions

of learned counsels which are more or less on the same lines as

the grounds taken in the pleadings and perused the case file. I

shall now proceed to deal with the merits and demerits thereof

and render my opinion based on the discussion and reasoning

contained hereafter.

[2025:RJ-JD:22510] (5 of 9) [CMA-902/2024]

8. First and foremost, perusal of the impugned award reveals

that learned Tribunal observed/held that Shyamlal, a third-grade

teacher, died after being struck by a bus bearing registration

number RJ-13-PB-2900. The bus was driven by Kamlesh Kumar

(non-applicant no. 1) and was under contract with the Rajasthan

State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC) (non-applicant no. 2).

During the trial, the petitioners submitted oral and documentary

evidence, including the FIR, charge sheet, site map, and post-

mortem report. Witnesses, including Shyamlal's wife, relatives,

and others, supported the petitioners' version of events. Though

some witnesses admitted to not having directly seen the accident,

their testimonies remained largely consistent and unshaken during

cross-examination. The charge sheet filed by the police confirmed

the charges against the bus driver under Sections 279 and 304A

IPC. The Tribunal found the evidence sufficient to prove that the

accident occurred due to the negligence of the bus driver and

decided this issue in favor of the petitioners.

8.1. The defense of RSRTC was that they were not liable as the

bus owner was contractually responsible for insurance coverage.

However, the Tribunal found that RSRTC had actual possession and

operational control of the bus. Government documents and the

route chart confirmed that the RSRTC was operating the vehicle

and collecting fare from passengers. As such, the Tribunal applied

the principle of vicarious liability and held RSRTC liable for the

accident. The Tribunal also rejected RSRTC's objection regarding

the absence of income proof and dependency of applicants no. 6

to 8. Salary certificates of the deceased were on record and

unchallenged, confirming a monthly income of ₹31,142. However,

[2025:RJ-JD:22510] (6 of 9) [CMA-902/2024]

the Tribunal held that applicants no. 6 to 8, being brothers and

not proven dependents, were not entitled to compensation.

8.2. Regarding the compensation amount, the Tribunal accepted

the salary certificates as valid evidence and determined ₹31,142

as the monthly income. After deducting ₹1,000 for income tax, the

net income was calculated as ₹30,142. Applying the established

precedent from the Sarla Verma case, one-fifth of the income was

deducted for personal expenses, considering the number of

dependents. The court used a multiplier of 15 based on the

deceased's age, which was confirmed to be 39 years.

8.3. For future prospects, the Tribunal added 50% to the income

as the deceased had a permanent job and was under 40 years old.

The Tribunal also awarded compensation for conventional heads

such as loss of estate, loss of consortium, and funeral expenses,

applying the amounts laid out in Pranay Sethi and subsequent

enhancements. Separate compensation was awarded for spousal,

parental, and filial consortium.

8.4. In terms of deductions, the Tribunal only allowed the

deduction of income tax and held that provident fund, pension,

and other benefits were not to be deducted. The Tribunal awarded

simple interest at the rate of 6% on the compensation amount

from the date of filing the petition until the realization of the

amount. No further compensation was granted.

9. The Tribunal thus concluded that the accident was a result of

the bus driver's negligence, the RSRTC was liable for the accident

as the operator of the vehicle, and the claimants were entitled to

compensation. The claim of applicants no. 6 to 8 was denied due

to lack of dependency.

[2025:RJ-JD:22510] (7 of 9) [CMA-902/2024]

9.1. However, the award deserves to be slightly modified, iter

alia, qua dependency and certain arithmetical calculations. Let us

see how.

9.2. Having seen the testimony of the witnesses in support of the

claim petition, it is borne out that the younger brother of the

deceased, Shyam Lal - namely Vishwas (respondent No.8) - who

was a minor at the time of the accident, has stood by his

testimony that he was born in the year 2000, and thus his being a

minor is not disputed. Moreover, even the learned Presiding Officer

of the Tribunal has observed that as on the date of death of

Shyam Lal on 02.02.2016, his younger brother Vishwas was less

than 18 years old, though he turned major soon thereafter.

9.3. It is thus not disputed that the parents of the deceased

victim were unemployed and were dependent on their son, who

died in the unfortunate accident. Therefore, they were not in a

position to provide any support and maintenance to their minor

son Vishwas.

10. In the circumstance, since it is not even the case of the

appellant - Corporation (RSRTC) - that Vishwas was employed

elsewhere so as to not be dependent on the earning of his

deceased brother, I am of the view that the learned Tribunal has

erroneously concluded that minor Vishwas was not dependent on

the deceased.

11. To that extent, the finding of the learned Tribunal needs to

be modified, and it is accordingly so ordered. It is held that other

than the wife, three minor children, and the widow mother of the

deceased, even his younger brother Vishwas shall also be treated

[2025:RJ-JD:22510] (8 of 9) [CMA-902/2024]

as his dependent, being a minor, dependent on the earnings of the

deceased.

12. Be that as it may, even if Vishwas, being a minor, is taken to

be a dependent, it is insignificant since in view of the judgment

rendered in Sarla Verma & Ors v. Delhi Transport Corporation &

Anr.1, in case of number of dependent being 04 to 06, the

personal expenses to be deducted are 1/4th, whereas the Tribunal

has committed an irregularity by deducting 1/5th as personal

expenses. Though, of course, on the basis of 05 dependents, but

as already stated that even if there are 05 or 06 dependents, the

deduction ought to have been 1/4th.

13. In parting, I may hasten to add here that the much emphasis

of the learned counsel for the appellant that since the widow

mother of the deceased had a separate Ration Card, in which the

name of minor Vishwas was also included - is of no significance. It

is the conceded case that despite having a Ration card, if the

widow mother could be treated as his dependent, I see no reason

why the minor Vishwas cannot be given the same benefit.

14. In the premise, appeal is partly allowed and the award is

modified to the extent of re-determination of the personal

expenses of the deceased, which were taken as 1/5th by the

Tribunal instead of 1/4th as per judgment passed in Sarla Verma

& Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., accordingly the

revised calculation are as below :-

    Sr.No.                     Particulars                                  Details
              Computation of Loss of income and future
    01.
              income of the deceased

1. Multiplying the fixed monthly income of the deceased Rs. 30,142 by 12 , Annual Rs.3,61,704/- Income = 30,142 x 12 = 3,61,704/-

1     2009(6) SCC 121


                                    [2025:RJ-JD:22510]                           (9 of 9)                          [CMA-902/2024]


                                    Sr.No.                        Particulars                                   Details

2. Annual income of the deceased multiplied Rs.54,25,560/-

by 15, Income is Rs. 3,61,704 x 15

3. Amount obtained by adding 50% of loss of income determined for loss of future growth Rs.81,38,340/- to the loss of income of the deceased

4. From the loss of total income of the deceased deducting 1/4th of personal expenses of the deceased 81,38,340 x 1/4 = Rs.61,03,755/-

20,34,585/-, loss of net income payable to the applicants = 81,38,340 - 20,34,585 = 61,03,755/-

Total loss of income suffered by the applicants

2. Rs.61,03,755/-

due to death of the deceased Amount of Rs.40,000/- payable to each dependent on the death of the deceased towards consortium, Total Rs. 40,000 x 8 = 3,20,000/- (calculation of interest from the

3. Rs.3,84,000/-

date of filing of claim petition i.e. 15.09.2016) = 3,20,000 x 10%+10% = 64,000/-) Total Consortium along with interest = 3,20,000 + 64,000 = 3,84,000/-

Amount payable for loss of Estate along with

4. interest (15,000 x 10%+10% = 3000/-) Rs. 18,000/-

Total Rs.15,000 + 3000 = 18,000/-

Amount payable for funeral expenses along

5. with interest (15,000 x 10% +10%= 3000/-) Rs. 18,000/-

Total Rs.15,000 + 3000 = 18,000/-

6. Total Amount Rs. 65,23,755/-

15. The compensation as per the revised calculation noted in the

table herein-above be disbursed to the claimants after deducting

what have already been paid.

16. Disposed of accordingly.

17. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.